On the 12th of August, 2017, in Bedminster, NJ, President Donald J. Trump gave a public statement regarding the recent violence which erupted during the Unite The Right (UTR) rally in Charlottesville, Virginia – a two-fold event staged to both unifying all portions of the dissident, nationalist right (whether ethno or civic nationalist) and protest the planned demolition of the Robert E. Lee memorial located in Charlottesville’s historic Emancipation Park (formerly, Lee Park). The POTUS emphantically stated:
“We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence – on many sides, on many sides.” [D.J.T., August 12th, 2017]
Scathing criticism from his Washington contemporaries swiftly follow starting with Republican senator, Cory Gardner who, with sincerest shallowness declared to the press, “-[Donald Trump] call this white supremacism, this white nationalism, evil. Let the country hear it, let the world hear it. Its something that needs to come from the Oval Office and this White House needs to do it today.”
Trump made another statement two days later on August 14 from the White House where he declared that, “Racism is evil and those who do violence in its name are criminals and thugs – including the KKK, neo-nazis, white supremacist and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything that we hold dear as Americans.” August 15, the POTUS made another public statement on the matter, stating firmly, “-I think there is blame on both sides [regarding the C-ville riots] and I have no doubt about it and you (the press) don’t have any doubt about it either.” Later he remarked, “You had a group on one side that was bad [the UTR marches] and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent [Antifa].” He went on to say of the UTR attendees, “-you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists.”
Trump’s arch-nemisis, the odious, slithering CNN (Cable News Network) utilized his comments as fodder for a libelous campaign so predictable that I shall not even here recount it. Suffice it to say that many anti-Trump pundits in the media self-righteously declared that the POTUS was a deranged water-carrier for “the white supremacists,” despite the fact that, objectively speaking, the POTUS’ statements were entirely accurate – indeed, they were, if anything too even-handed as pertains to the reality of the events of UTR (Trump also, as far as I am aware, failed to mention the cops which were told to stand down from securing the perimeter of the event and preventing the very violence that erupted due to the baying mob of “anti-racist” protesters – this, due the GOP’s deplorable habit of mindlessly deifying police officials).
I shall waste no time in either attacking or defending President Trump or any of the associated defenders and detractors concerning the affair for it has been extensively covered elsewhere and information pertaining thereto is easy found. Rather, I think it would be imminently more useful to turn our attention to the through-line that weaves all the President’s detractors together – “white supremacy” and “racism.” In my article, The ism-Conundrum, I extensively covered the profligate and oft erroneous or otherwise context free usage of the term “racism,” a distortion-tendency which has only re-intensified with the explosive events of Charlottesville that culminated in the deaths of three individuals. Fault was laid rather predictably upon the Dark Idol of racism and foundationless hatred who looms o’er the world like a colossus, straddling the globe and strangling all good mirth and camaraderie with his steely, vice-like grip. No protestation shall avail you once that terrible entity clasps its hands about your throat! All but the bravest (or most foolish!) fall silent beneath the throttling.
The Dark Idol is peculiar in that it is not merely a fable but a real and present force, but yet a force which was borne more of half-truths than clear-and-present reality.
“Race” is a very old word that is theorized to have developed from the Latin radix, meaning a root or, more informally, the source or origin of something. Then there is the German reiza, which denotes one’s familial heredity. The list could go on and on. The connective semantic factor between both words as well as our modern English coinage, race, is a demarcation of “that from which something comes.” This can be witnessed all throughout the ages; there have been a panoply of different commonly utilized words across innumerable cultures (specifically, but not exclusively, western ones) that informally use race (or the foreign, linguistic equivalent thereof) as a synonym for various social norms, both positive and negative but – and surprisingly to modern westerners – generally positive. If one is surprised by this one will be even more surprised to learn it is still common practice in the west to this very day. For instance, consider the courteous compliment to bonny females that can still be heard in some portions of modern-day France, elle est de bonne race, meaning, she is of good breed or character, in Croatia, to say a woman is rasna (raceful) is a another similar compliment. Consider the kind of baleful attention you, dear reader, would attract should you, in passing a attractive young woman, possessed of distinctive ethnic traits, say that she looks “raceful!” Why the very next instant you should be shouted clean from the room, and like as not trounced from your job, deserted by all loose associates – your friends and family may even distance themselves from you – and most assuredly your local reputation would be irrevocably shattered, for you would be – drumroll – a (gasp) racist (shudder!) – and all because you dared to comment upon a starkly manifest reality.
Indeed, this is precisely what has and is happening to numerous individuals (whom are predominately, but by no means exclusively white Europeans) all across the western world. Consider the case of Samuel T. Francis, a notable political columnist who worked extensively and prominently for the widely syndicated, staunchly conservative US publication, The Washington Times. Many of Francis columns were controversial. In 1994 Francis attended a conference hosted by American Renaissance (Amren) one of the largest and most popular white advocacy groups in the country. A year later the Goan-Dravidic conservative writer, Dinesh D’Souza wrote a column detailing a speech Francis had given at Amren where he had argued strongly against racial intermarriage and asserted that “whites” needed to reawaken their “racial consciousness.” For this commentary he was summarily fired and effectively black-balled from ever again participating not just in journalism or opinion columnism but in many different circles of “polite” society.
Many Americans today (and certainly many in the past), especially those of a left-centrist, leftist progressive or “color-blind” conservative streak (such as D’Douza) may well think his firing justified. Indeed, I’d say that even if he had made no such beyond-the-pale remark his employers at the Times should have been able to fire him for good reasons, bad reasons or no reasons at all – such is the nature of true freedom of association – any other arrangement would require government overreach and to see why that is a bad thing all one has to do is look about at the fractal scorching that mass corporatism has wrought upon the United States of America or most any other industrialized western nation. That being said, all he did was talk, and he didn’t talk violently and he wasn’t argued down. No one came up and said, he you can think what you want just be a doll and don’t put that in the paper. No he was simply X’d off the list. You’re not allowed to think those kinds of things. Most certainly, you cannot dare to talk about them, even if it is only in your own good time!
Course Francis is far from alone in this, there’s James Watson, the scientist who was forced out of his profession and shunned from polite society because he commented on the effects of aggregate IQ on human populations in Africa (a empirical point, mind you), then there is Daniel Dennett who demands that we “just don’t need to know” some things and anything scientific pertaining to race is one of them. Why? Because he is terrified of being called the R-word. Racist. Of course. Why else? Then there is former newman and WH strategist, Steve Bannon and POTUS Donald Trump who both have had a strange imagine project onto them that is entirely incongruent with reality wherein they appear to the left-wing establishment media as some kind of deranged, Nazi-beasts who are rubbing their hands together and grinning at the prospect of annihilating some poor colored folk for no other reason then that they are just that evil. Then there is the Indy 500 race-car driver, Terry Frie who was fired immediately after he posted a message to his social media which stated that he felt “uncomfortable” with a “Japanese driver” winning the Indy 500 on memorial day; a innocuous statement which is in no way different from any of the blacks or hispanic citizens of the country state that they were “afraid” because Steven Bannon or Jeff Sessions was in the White House. Even the ultra-centrist social philosopher and neuroscience, Sam Harris has been accused of “racism” for simply talking to political scientist, Charles Murray (a libertarian) about human IQ measurements and methodologies. It matters not, of course, that one is talking about facts because to the modern American mind, those facts are racist.
Such is the lunacy the Dark Idol inspires. Make not, unto it, any appropriations lest its tenebrous tendrils slither unto your mind.
Yet we must ask, where did all of this madness come from – what is it’s radix? To answer that question we must trace the etymology of the word “racism” itself. For as previously stated “race” is a very old word, yet “racism” and “racist” are quite curiously recent linguistic conventions in the vast weave of history’s loom.
The word “racism” first entered the popular consciousness of the western world in the 1930s with the publication of the posthumous book titled (what else) Racism (1938). The book was written by the German-Jewish sexologist, Magnus Hirschfeld who is today remembered on the website Gendernetwork as the “Father of Transgenderism,” due to his tireless crusading on the behalf of what he considered to be sexual minorities. In fact, Hirshfeld was so dedicated to the cause of sexual liberation of “oppressed” classes that he created a organization called the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee) specifically to further those ends. The SHC was created in Berlin with the primary aim of working for the benefit of homosexuals in the overturning of penal codes which could potentially put them behind bars (Hirshfeld and his associates argued that such laws encourage blackmail and were needlessly hostile towards those who were attracted to the same sex). The motto of the organization was: Justice Through Science, which starkly reflected Hirshfeld and the Komitee’s deeply held belief that a more thorough understanding of the science of sexuality would lead to a more just and affable relationship between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Much like his contemporaries – Alfred Kinsey, Havelock Ellis and Albert Moll – Hirshfeld was not merely a scientist-turned-social-rights-advocate but also a radical ideologue who adhered to the doctrine of “sexual liberation,” i.e. the continuous removal of all sexual norms and taboos in the pursuit of “living the good life” by bringing about an ever greater leveling of persons, institutions, values and traditions.
In his book, Racism, Hirshfeld harshly and scathingly critiques the most prominent racial beliefs of the 19th and 20th centuries. He was often correct in his criticism of racial ideology, though much of what he critiqued was not as he claimed “psuedo-science” but simply, developing science, or in certain fields, pre or non scientific. Such categories bare distinction. It should also be noted that (likely because of demography) the majority of Hirshfeld’s “anti-racism” did not focus on extra-ethnic groups and their interplay with Europeans at large but rather, focused most intensively upon intra-ethnic conflicts within the European peoples such as those which occurred in the then-popular sub-racial Euro-categories: Nordics, Alpines, Dinarics and Mediterraneans. Blacks, hispanics, arabs and other “people of color” occupied little of his time. Also curious about Hirshfeld’s racial critiques was the fact that he paid almost no mind to the rising anti-Jewish attitudes where were becoming evermore pervasive within the Weimar Republic. In point of fact, Hirshfeld was far more critical of his own Jewish kin than the German out-group, oft issuing scathing dissections exposing the Semitic tendency towards extreme ethnocentrism. Indeed, he denounced every form and fashion of ethnocentric attachment, save for one notable exception, that being Stalinist Russia. This spiritual or philosophical orientation towards Stalin’s ostensible paradise was due Hirshfeld own deeply held sense of elemental anti-nationalism and collective humanism. For instance, the sexologist styled himself as a “Pan-Humanist” and his work starkly reflects it, a passage from his book states:
“The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship – that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” (Racism, M. H., 1938)
One can here see how very similar Hirschfeld’s notions of human universalism and sexual liberation are to today’s mainstream views on such topics.
Here there are echos. Echoes we must follow as they trammel up the consequences of the age.
[continued in part 2]